• pearsaltchocolatebar
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    The fun thing is that on paper that’s what the electoral college was supposed to prevent.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Is it? I know this is a theoretical possibility, but do electors even have the right to vote against what their state is having them do? Did any of the “founding fathers” talk about this as a benefit?

      • BossDj@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        When it was created, the electors were not limited to state discretion.

        Honestly, what really sold the idea of electors was the “past the post” number. The founders were reluctant to use any system other than ‘Congress picks the president’, but became convinced that so many people would be running for president, each state’s electors would vote for “their state’s guy” and the house of reps would get to choose anyway. Meanwhile we could claim to have a system where the people choose.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          The founders were reluctant to use any system other than ‘Congress picks the president’

          Exactly, and the compromise they eventually settled on was “state legislatures collectively pick the president.”

          The idea of Electors was simply a result of that, as a workaround for the fact that “one state legislator, one vote” wouldn’t work because different states had them representing different numbers of constituents.

          It was not initially intended for Electors to be chosen by popular vote.